Do you support the proposal for the new arena?

  • Yes

    Votes: 89 65.0%

  • No

    Votes: 39 28.5%

  • Maybe

    Votes: 9 6.6%
  • Total voters
    137
dazzlingdave88 said:
Loan repayment, not a lease.

Question, does the city already have the extra $316 million in reserves to cover CSEC portion or are they borrowing to cover that portion? If they are borrowing, what interest rate would they get?
Click to expand...
On the radio a Councillor said reserves. But cash management is ultimately up to Council. In the end, it doesn't matter whether you're paying interest or not receiving interest payments, they're just two sides of the same coin. Spending is spending. Spending always has opportunity costs. The structure of the spending matters little beyond have we been taxed already for it, or will we be taxed into the future given administration has said it is within the current budget constraint, which they call 'financial capacity'.
 
While I believe there is an importance in preserving historical structures of significance, this should be a non-issue. If the majority of people passing has zero idea of its history, it is not significant. Just because something is old doesn’t make it important.
 
JoeUrban said:
I'm not sure what could be done with that small commercial building but if this was the criteria for heritage value then nothing would be considered significant.
Click to expand...
Then maybe we can make way for better infrastructure. The CEO of Heritage Calgary in that article says “if the building is moved, it loses the context of the community it is in”. Like the community of surface parking lots that surround it on all sides?
Don’t know many examples in Calgary as I’m relatively new, but in Toronto, we built a brand new train roof at union that lets in plenty of natural light, but it covers 1/3 of the platform because the old rusty train shed was “heritage” and needed to be preserved. If Rotterdam and Berlin and other cities with arguably more history than us can demolish their old stuff to make way for modern infrastructure, maybe we can do the same.
 
The buildings on Stephen Ave are heritage, this is just a random old building around parking lots. Once they demolished the community, it has no reason to stay. Just make this area modern, efficient and have a good urban design. I
 
trtcttc said:
Then maybe we can make way for better infrastructure. The CEO of Heritage Calgary in that article says “if the building is moved, it loses the context of the community it is in”. Like the community of surface parking lots that surround it on all sides?
Don’t know many examples in Calgary as I’m relatively new, but in Toronto, we built a brand new train roof at union that lets in plenty of natural light, but it covers 1/3 of the platform because the old rusty train shed was “heritage” and needed to be preserved. If Rotterdam and Berlin and other cities with arguably more history than us can demolish their old stuff to make way for modern infrastructure, maybe we can do the same.
Click to expand...
I agree that the context of the community is pretty much trashed already. What would probably make sense is if it has to be moved just stick it on some rails and slide it half a block to the east

from here
1686675775035.png


to here
1686676635784.png
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top